Book Blogs are “Bad for Readers”

Book blogs harm the integrity of serious literature? Read You Bastard cannot help but feel included in this indictment.

Last week The Independent interviewed Sir Peter Stothard, editor of the Times Literary Supplement and judge of this year’s Man Booker Prize. His comments set off a storm of controversy across the book blogosphere, which is generally what happens when you criticize the book blogosphere.

“It is wonderful that there are so many blogs and websites devoted to books,” Sir Peter said with some equanimity, “but to be a critic is to be importantly different than those sharing their own taste… Not everyone’s opinion is worth the same.” He elaborates on his views of blogging:

“…. Eventually that will be to the detriment of literature. It will be bad for readers; as much as one would like to think that many bloggers opinions are as good as others. It just ain’t so. People will be encouraged to buy and read books that are no good, the good will be overwhelmed, and we’ll be worse off. There are some important issues here.”

As they say: Snap.

This is not unlike the way traditional journalists have viewed news bloggers for more than a decade. Here comes amateur hour, pilfering the quotes I got from my interviews and forming half-baked opinions (or forming opinions, period). Which I’m doing with this story, by the way.

Blogging is the bridge over the moat. Pedigreed devotees like Sir Peter now have to share the castle keep with the motley rabble, who are more passionate than disciplined in their promotion of books.

“There is a widespread sense in the UK, as well as America, that traditional, confident criticism, based on argument and telling people whether the book is any good, is in decline. Quite unnecessarily.”

I hope he’s not under some powerful delusion that this decline is a new thing. When have literary critics not bemoaned, albeit justifiably, society’s diminishing appreciation for what they do? With all these noisy bloggers, they’re losing control of the conversation. They don’t feel they can effectively do their job of determining the works we ought to value as a culture.

Let’s consider where he’s coming from

…and have a peek at Stothard’s priorities in evaluating literary excellence:

He dismisses the readability tag as a “side issue” on judging novels and concedes the organisers may have chosen him as chair of the judges to avoid similar issues this year. 

(I guess we can see another Wolf Hall this time, for better or worse.)

He and book bloggers both love to write about what they read, but the relatability likely ends there:

He cannot remember the last sporting event he went to and has no interest in films, admitting to only ever seeing six films in his lifetime.

This is quite telling. It’s a testament of his devotion to literature– he’s all-in. Of course, anyone who invests his every waking moment to the written word and nothing else is going to be incredibly sensitive to any perceived downtick in the societal value of books.

And if anything, that’s why he’s not the best person to listen to on what the public should be reading. Where’s his perspective? A twelve-year-old could condescend to him on the principles of cinematography and what a corner kick is.

At the risk of sounding democratic, I believe that if someone’s making decisions on what passes and what fails in the literary canon, his agenda should more closely resemble that of an enlightened human being than an antisocial android. I have a towering respect for someone like Stothard in his dedication to literature, but can someone this isolated from the general reading public, as he seems to be, truly be effective in promoting good books? When you champion an author’s achievement while ignoring standards of enjoyability and readability, rather than seeking some combination of these, of course the reading public will find you increasingly irrelevant. If no one wants to read the works you’re preserving, they will not be preserved.

I can think of only one proper fashion of settling this debate. As he is a knight, I beseech Sir Peter get himself armoured and saddle his steed: I would fain meet him in the lists.

If You Deface a Book on the Internet, You’d Better Run For “The Hills”

One would think that book lovers were a meek lot. But when Lauren Conrad took an exacto knife to A Series of Unfortunate Events for a crafting project last week, she may as well have defiled the Holy Koran. Bibliophiles raged at her online video how-to for taking apart book spines to decorate a box. The Buzzfeed blogger described her reaction thus: “I feel like I’m watching a murder.”

Yes, look at that bitch, casually pantomiming the genocide of ideas. Lemony Snicket? That’s a childhood memory she’s cutting– I feel it bleed.

Before we label the response– which prompted Conrad to pull the video from her site and YouTube– as overdramatic, let’s talk about it. Where did this aversion to the destruction of a set of books, not belonging to us, among thousands and thousands of copies, come from? Was it simply the act of carving the things up?

You’ll never see anyone respond this way to book sculpture, which is an established art form that routinely slices and dices rare vintage books that you’d kill to have in your library. Granted, book sculptures– by real book sculptors– are awesome. Perhaps for Ms. Buzzfeed and her supportive commenters, that would be a case of the ends dazzlingly justifying the means. It’s easier to accept the defacement of a tome when it is reborn as a genuine artifact of awesomeness. We can’t really say the same for a modest, mid-afternoon craft project. Books were sacrificed, and the result was clearly found wanting.

No one’s willing to say this but yes, it did matter that they were Lemony Snicket books. These folks want to act as if their outrage is over principle, that the symbolic gesture is the thing, but would Conrad have drawn so much ire if she were slicing “Analyzing Trends in Global Bond Markets: 1981-1985?”

However, it is Lauren Conrad. Symbolism plays a small part here. I won’t make assumptions as to her level of reading appreciation, tempting as it is since she’s famous from MTV’s “The Hills.” But that’s just it. As far as many book lovers are concerned, she’s an agent of the enemy. If you accept the notion that a book commits suicide every time someone watches “Jersey Shore,” then once one of MTV’s pseudocelebrities actually takes a knife to a children’s classic, it is the nightmare made manifest.

 Slate reached the actual Lemony Snicket for comment, who had this to say:

It has always been my belief that people who spend too much time with my work end up as lost souls, drained of reason, who lead lives of raving emptiness and occasional lunatic violence. What a relief it is to see this documented.

Let’s be honest: Conrad presumed this project to be inoffensive because she’s like most people in this regard. Most normal people. I hate to say it, but the book-lovin’ lynch mob are the crazies on this one, and this controversy conflicts with the image that, in the culture war to defend literacy, we’re the rational thinkers.

I Try to Talk About Magical Realism

Márquez is credited as the most famous writer of magical-realistic fiction, but by no means was he the first. Countless authors have mingled the earthly with the otherworldly back before we even had a glossary term for it.

Rob Gonsalves’ “The Sun Sets Sail”

As a glossary term, magical realism’s pretty sketchy to describe. Penguin’s Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory takes a crack at it:

Some of the characteristic features of this kind of fiction are the mingling and juxtaposition of the realistic and the fantastic or bizarre, skillful time shifts, convoluted and even labyrinthine narratives and plots, miscellaneous use of dreams, myths, and fairy stories, expressionistic and even surrealistic description, arcane erudition, the element of surprise or abrupt shock, the horrific and the inexplicable.

Well, that’s an enlightening sentence. And it would seem to include too many works of fiction– anything with a ghost, say, or a character having a dream (especially if it’s “miscellaneously used?”)

So I’m going to point out a few characteristics that I think especially define magical realism. Let me start with the idea that in magical realism, the fantastic is always treated as normal. Something batshit happens, and we’re just gonna roll with it. Gregor Samsa wakes up to discover he’s a giant bug. Okay. Now he’s going to try to make the morning commute. We’re not to question why it happened or how it possibly could. We’re just gonna roll with it.

In One Hundred Years of Solitude, it rains practically nonstop for four years. The traveling gypsies practically bring flying carpets. People practically live to be 120 years old. Except not practically— they just do, and it ain’t no thang. The townspeople capture a monster, and the marauding satyr-thing is there and gone in one page, never to be mentioned again.

What’s so distinctive about One Hundred Years of Solitude’s narrative is that it’s so straight-faced. This was deliberate on Márquez’s part because that’s how his grandparents used to tell him stories when he was a kid. They treated the mundane and the outrageous with equal solemnity; you couldn’t tell by their faces which parts were real and which were exaggerated. Anyone reading Márquez’s work can see the emulation therein.

Here’s a question: what separates magical-realistic fiction from straight-up fantasy? And better yet, why is the former typically considered literature and the latter just genre stuff? I have a couple thoughts on what distinguishes magical realism from its D&D-playing cousin. In magical realist stories…

1. The symbolism is so much more intentional. Oftentimes, magical realism is simply the figurative made literal. In Solitude, the century-old house doesn’t just feel to be filled with ghosts, it is filled with ghosts. It’s the guilt and longing, among other somber feelings, of the living made manifest. Márquez can convey this haunted, hallowed feeling of the Buendía household without the dead actually walking around in it, but the symbolic nature of the ghosts becomes much harder to ignore.

When you see reality bending, that’s probably a symbol right there in front of you, stamping its hooves and snapping its beak.

Or…

2. The fantastic sets up a story to carry greater meaning. Let’s return to “The Metamorphosis.” Is Gregor’s bug transformation supposed to be a symbol? I don’t think so. But the story uses that transformation to expose Gregor’s obsession with being the provider for his family (If I don’t get to work, they’ll all starve!) and the revelation that they can get on pretty handily without him. Kafka can tell that story without his protagonist turning into a big beetle. I’m sure of it! But here the point of a man’s overinflated sense of white-collar importance is made so much more comically (if you’re me) and powerfully than it would have been otherwise.

In straight-up fantasy, magic, monsters, and immortality mostly exist for their own sake. They’re simply the pieces with which you put together that kind of story. You can construe symbolism and greater meaning from the politics between elves and dwarves in the Wheel of Time series, but people will laugh at you. The magical elements are just there to tell a story, not to communicate some transcendent metaphor.

Unless we’re talking Tolkien and Lewis. If their stuff was any more blatantly allegorical it’d be Everyman. But that allegorical quality is partly why we widely elevate them to literature.

So that’s my take. Magical realism’s a genre that needs some narrowing down and sometimes needs distinction from fantasy, and that’s how I would do both. Would you do any differently? What do you even think of  the genre as a whole? My pet giraffe and I have been discussing the matter pretty heatedly, and we’re currently at a stalemate of opinion.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers